The critics have spoken. They – 177 of them – have compiled a list of the 21st century’s greatest films and have decided that the best feature flick is Mulholland Drive.

Fair? I’ve really no idea. I haven’t seen the 2001 neo-noir (whatever that means) flick and, given it only took $20 million at the box office, the chances are that neither have you.

The list, commissioned by BBC Culture, is a line-up of curiously rare grooves – not uncommon for something contributed to by art experts. Watching them all back to back would be like listening to a radio station that only broadcast Radio 4’s Front Row. Oh, I don’t doubt that by the end of it you’d consider your cultural appetites well and truly sated and you’d feel artistically smug to levels way above self-satisfaction. But by gum you’d be bored stiff.

I like Lost In Translation (21st) and Mad Max: Fury Road (19th), but even I’ll admit that, at the end of them, it’s hard to shake the feeling that precisely nothing of any great consequence has happened. Not once in this apparent top 100 has anyone thrown these motherflippin’ snakes off this motherflippin’ plane, nor has anyone tried to repair to the Winchester until this all blows over.

But more than that, with the odd exception, it’s almost as if the chances of doing well on the critics’ list is inversely proportional to a film making a shedload of money. The weirder, more obscure and less watched the film, the better. Scroll through the top 100 and you’ll not find a hobbit, a pirate, a Mark Wahlberg (with or without teddy bear), nor a lanky, pacifist blue alien construct controlled by a paraplegic US marine among them. Not until 33 on the list do you find a film that is one of the 50 highestgrossing (The Dark Night). I care not for Avatar, but I will shed a tear for how the omission might hurt Ted’s feelings.

Which brings me, belatedly I’ll admit, to cars. Were 177 noteworthy vehicle critics, assuming you could find that many, asked to choose the top 100 cars of the 21st century, clearly we wouldn’t be so completely out of touch with the car-buying public. Or would we?

In the early 1990s, when the terrible Mk4 Ford Escort was Britain’s best-selling car, the motoring press wet itself over the Alpine A610, yet the great British carbuying public took to it in quantities of around half a dozen a year. Deeper into the 1990s, the Honda NSX was still winning ‘car of the year’ competitions back to back. And yet end-of-year sales figures would show that more Jaguar XJ220s were still belatedly being registered than NSXs were finding buyers.

Lastly, a decade ago I came back a bit puzzled from the launch of a new car that I couldn’t quite see the point of. You might have heard of it. It was called the Nissan Qashqai, now sometimes the second-best-selling car in the country. Finger on the pulse as ever. Maybe it’s time to pop down to Blockbuster Video and rent a copy of Avatar.

Join the debate

Because of different priorities I suppose.
Critics tend to place driving dynamics above all else.
Customers also consider ride, comfort, reliability, looks etc.
That's why the overall star rating means nothing. It has to be broken down into different categories.

...Motoring critics are obsessed by things that (in the main, to most people) don't matter. On the limit handling, body control at ten tenths, ability to trail brake into the apex of a corner on a track etc. Makes great copy, keeps the enthusiast entertained, but means jack to 99.9% of people.

One exception is Ford. (Expecting flack, but here's my unsolicited opinion) U.K. motoring critics banging on about the great handling (accept accurate depiction) of generally otherwise mediocre cars seems to make the fiesta and focus best sellers in Britain. In most of the rest of the world Ford can't give them away.

I haven't ridden in one, so can't comment on ride and comfort, though given that the mk1 rode on a Megane chassis and if it kept the French fettling these should be ok.

But reliability? The DCi engine is known for killing injectors, conrod failure etc.

And looks? The Qashqai is - and most similar crossover SUVs for that matter are - as elegant as Tray and San, the portly ladies from the Viz comic. A world away from supermodel concept styling. Park one next to an Alfa 159, then comment about looks.

People say that they can get in and out "easier" - I find that it is like stepping in and out of a Transit van, not particularly easier than getting into a regular car, and that they sit higher. Again, a van offers this, but if I wanted to sit high I'd climb the stairs in a double decker bus.

A decade on and I still do not see the inexplicable appeal of the Qashqai. It's like some strange mind virus has taken hold of everyone and they see this as the epitome of motoring.

Yes it is built in the UK etc. - but then so was the Primera, and nobody bought it, so is the Avensis and other than a handful of taxi/minicab drivers, nobody buys it.

You say you've not ridden in a Quashcow ... and do no see the appeal. I suspect the two comments are linked.
SUVs are liked by many car buyers because of their high (superior?) driving position and ease of access. Their faux-by-four looks are also popular, apparently, to many. No, they don't handle as well as a lower riding 'normal' car, but their raised driving position and softer suspension make for more relaxing driving, which is what most people want, and what road-testers harping on about Nurburgring lap times fail to grasp.

Critics are writing for enthusiasts and this applies to food, music cinema, cars and loads of other areas.

As someone with a very young family when the Squashy was launched, it was immediately obvious that it was going to be a runaway hit, particularly when parked alongside the uniformly dull people carriers of the era.

Matt if you want to cringe, you should look back at "Sycophantic Steve's" Evora launch issue . It was so glowing, Porsche were going to be struggling to sell cars from here onwards. I feel particularly smug on this one as I predicted accurately what Autocar's cover strap lines would be and what the editorial would say some weeks prior to launch in these very reader comments .

All car magazines give better reports, just after a launch, that are then watered down when they actually drive the car for a longer period on more representative roads. In addition, launches tend to be written by one person, rather than the several later that road test, it which gives an unbalanced view. And by the way; criticise the car by all means but lay off the staff, Ravon. Hiding behind your avatar and making comments like those above is not big or clever.

Because most people want a comfortable car, with looks they find appealing, that'll cruise the motorway in comfort and smooth away pot-holes and speed bumps. We're not interested in clipping that apex "just so", brake feel that allows us to keep it hovering "just on the onset of anti-lock",or "hanging the arse out". We're normal.

...that car journos are out of touch with the realities of modern driving. Handling is almost irrelevant when you're crawling on gridlocked roads. You need enough power to overtake a slow lorry, anymore is pointless with all the average cameras/poor roads. What you do need is a decent phone interface, sat nav that works well to avoid jams and nice design touches that make you smile.

don't buy a car, at least not until they get married and settle down. Driving scores of different models each year - maybe hundreds, I don't know - must give them a different perspective to the 'ordinary Joe' who probably drives fewer than twenty cars in his entire driving career.